Chattisgarh High Court

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs Govinda Yadav on 7 May, 2025

                                                                         1




                                                                                          2025:CGHC:21049
                                                                                                  NAFR
           Digitally signed
           by PRAKASH
                                         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
PRAKASH KUMAR
KUMAR   Date:
        2025.05.09
           15:42:55 +0530
                                                          MAC No. 1000 of 2015
                              •  Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional
                                 Office Shiv Mohan Bhawan, Vidhansabha Road Pandri, Raipur, District
                                 Raipur, Chhattisgarh,
                                                                                           ... Appellant
                                                             Versus
                              1. Govinda Yadav, aged about 21 years, S/o Late Gajanand Yadav,
                              2. Ku. Seema Yadav, aged about 18 years, D/o Late Gajanand Yadav,
                                 Respondent No.1 and 2 are R/o Village Memradih, P.S. and Tehsil

Pithora, District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh,

3. Mohd. Iliyas, aged about 32 years, S/o Mohd Ishak, R/o Nayapara, Mahasamund, P.S. and Tehsil Pithora, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh,...... Driver

4. Girish Gandecha S/o Late Ramdik Gandecha, R/o Near Mining Office Mahabeer Nagar, Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh,.... Owner ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate For Respondent No.1 & 2 : Mr. Jameel Akhtar Lohani, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 07.05.2025

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant - The Bajaj Allianz

General Insurance Company Limited against the award dated

22.04.2015 passed by the Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Raipur, Chhattisgarh (in short 'the Tribunal') wherein in Claim Case

No.135/2011, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.7,42,000/- in favour

of the claimants and against the non-applicant Nos.1, 2 & 3 jointly and

severally, along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of

claim petition till its realisation.

2. As per averments made in the claim petitions filed under Section 166 of

the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on 28.04.2011 at about 05:00 AM,

Gajanand Yadav (deceased) was going on road on foot towards

Baldidih. At that time, on the way, non-applicant No.1/driver of a truck

(tanker) bearing registration No.CG-04-JA-3692 (hereinafter referred to

as 'the offending vehicle') who was driving in a rash and negligent

manner dashed Gajanand Yadav, as a result of which he sustained

grievous injuries and died on the spot. At the time of accident, the

offending vehicle was owned by non-applicant No.2 - Girish Gandecha

and insured with non-applicant No.3 - Bajaj Allianz General Insurance

Company Limited. As per the claim petition, deceased Gajanand

Yadav was a labour (Rajmistri) and he was earning Rs.6,000/- per

month.

3. A claim petition has been filed by the claimants claiming compensation

to the tune of Rs.19,90,000/- on various heads, stating, inter alia, that

the deceased was working as Rajmistri and earning Rs.6,000/- per

month. The Tribunal, considering the evidence led by both the parties,

passed an award as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment.

4. Learned Claims Tribunal framed issues on the basis of pleadings and

decided the same in favour of the claimants/respondent No.1 & 2

(herein), while awarding compensation amount as mentioned in

paragraph No.1 of this judgment and fixed the liability over non-

applicant Nos.1,2 & 3 jointly and severally to pay the compensation.

5. Being aggrieved, the insurer - The Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company

Limited has preferred this appeal. Shri Ghanshyam Patel, learned

counsel for the insurance company vehemently submits that though the

appellant-insurance company is the insurer of the truck (tanker), but the

alleged accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the

unknown vehicle and in order to get the compensation, the claimants

have falsely involved the tanker (truck). He further submits that after

the accident, report was lodged by one Gopi Yadav, brother of the

deceased against unknown vehicle and that said Gopi Yadav has not

been examined by the claimants. This apart, the driver of the offending

vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the

said vehicle. On these premises, it is urged by learned counsel for the

appellant-insurance company that the insurance company be

exonerated from its liability. Reliance has been placed upon the

decision of this Court in the matter of Baijnath and Another Vs.

Chandrika Prasad Sahu and Other reported in 2008 (1) CGLJ 307

(DB).

6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1& 2/claimants, while

admitting that no separate appeal has been filed by them against the

impugned award, supports the impugned award and submits that for

proving the above facts, the insurance company has not examined any

witness on its behalf. Further, the insurance company has not

produced any document to show that at the time of accident, the driver

of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving

licence. He also submits that after the investigation, the police has filed

the final report (Ex.P-1) against the driver (non-applicant No.1) of the

offending vehicle under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and

Section 184 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Thus, the Tribunal after

appreciating the evidence available on record has rightly fastened the

liability upon the insurance company which needs no interference by

this Court.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material

available on record.

8. Now, the question that arises for consideration as to whether the

learned Claims Tribunal was justified in fixing the liability upon the

insurance company?

9. Jitendra Yadav (AW-02) who is cited as the eye witness to the incident,

has deposed that on the date of accident i.e. on 28.04.2011, he along

with his friend Gajanand Yadav (deceased) were going on road, at that

time driver of the offending vehicle by driving the same in a rash and

negligent manner dashed Gajanand Yadav, as a result of which he died

on the spot.

10.Govind Yadav (AW-01) who is the son of the deceased has deposed

that at the time of alleged accident, he was not present at the spot,

therefore, he is unable to depose regarding the accident caused by

which vehicle. This witness in his cross-examination has further

admitted that though he was not present at the spot, but he along with

other persons involved a vehicle in the accident and said that the

accident occurred with the said vehicle, however, he has not specifically

stated that he has falsely involved the said vehicle.

11.Thus, from the perusal of the above evidence, it is clear that a report

(Ex.P-2) was lodged by one Gopi Yadav (not examined) against the

unknown vehicle but the police after the investigation, seized the

offending vehicle along with the documents from the possession of the

driver/non-applicant No.1 on the same day at about 01:10 PM vide

seizure memo (Ex.P-7) within four hours from lodging of the report

(Ex.P-2). Moreover, after investigation, the police has filed the final

report (Ex.P-1) against the driver of the offending vehicle under Section

304-A IPC and 184 of MV Act before the Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Pithoura but no counter report with respect to his false implication has

been lodged by the driver of the offending vehicle before the police.

This apart, the insurance company has not examined the investigating

officer of the case and any other witness on its behalf to show that the

offending vehicle was not involved in the said accident and that, the

owner and driver of the offending vehicle have also not examined

themselves before the Tribunal.

That apart, counsel for the appellant submits that at the time of

accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and

effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle but the seizure

memo (Ex.P-7) would show that the license which was seized from the

driver of the offending vehicle was valid till 15.07.2013 whereas the

accident occurred on 28.04.2011, meaning thereby, at the time of

accident, the driver was holding driving license.

12.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in matter of Ranjeet & Another V. Abdul

Kayam Neb and Another passed SLP (C) No.10351/2019 dated

25.02.2025, has held in paragraph 4 which reads as under:

"It is settled in law that once a charge sheet has been filed and the driver has been held negligent, no further evidence is required to prove that the bus was being negligently driven by the bus driver. Even if the eye- witnesses are not examined, that will not be fatal to prove the death of the deceased due to negligence of the bus driver."

13.Thus, considering the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the above referred matter and further considering the

fact that after the investigation, the police has filed the charge sheet

against the driver of the offending vehicle before the Judicial Magistrate

First Class, Pithoura which clearly shows that the accident occurred

due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending

vehicle/non-applicant No.1. Besides this, the insurance company has

not examined any witness in its behalf to prove that the offending

vehicle has been falsely implicated in the alleged accident and that the

driver and owner of the offending vehicle has also not been examined.

This apart, it is not disputed that at the time of accident, the offending

vehicle was insured with the insurance company and that the insurance